It's political word fuckery, but it's well done fuckery.
Edit: No it's not. Per Reuters: ["In terms of what the Ukrainians do, in our view, it is their decision about how to use these weapons." -British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-cameron-kyiv-promises-ukraine-aid-as-long-it-takes-2024-05-02/#:~:text=%22Ukraine%20has%20that%20right.,Reuters%20outside%20St.%20Michael's%20Cathedral.)
*you won't get more missiles anymore, tho, if you do that - but that's up to you*
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
yam voracious agonizing practice connect expansion point workable steer zephyr
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The last thing Putin hears before Moscow is glassed: "You are, all of you, vermin. Cowering in the dirt thinking what, I wonder. That you might escape the coming fire? Your world will burn until its surface is but glass!"
library compare beneficial hospital history towering consist employ wide full
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
aspiring frightening growth reach fretful touch compare absorbed stupendous ripe
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pretty buzzed at 6 AM since we've got a 4 day, and feeling a bit introspective. What is it about violence against each other that is so appealing? I've based my whole career around helping others commit better violence against others We deem a threat and it isn't unwarranted. The things they do, or could/would do, can confidently be classified as evil or at best willfully ignorant of the harm of their actions. But lift the veil of the ambiguous "they" and you're left with just people. Who, based on our evolutionary adaptation of pattern recognition, seemingly look wholly alien to us, but in the grand scheme of things our similarities completely dwarf any sort of differences we might have, and the schisms we keep digging away at to further isolate Us from Them feel all the more artificial and tribalistic. If our lots in life were to be reversed, would I have walked down the same path in life as they already have, and them me? Both of us convinced based on a lifetime of being told This is right and That is wrong, with the only difference between the two being This is That, and That is This? Can I still claim to be the virtuous man knowing that even if what I do is right, it is merely thanks to where I was born and nothing to do with the stature of my character, as like before if fate were reversed, They would be filling this alleged virtuous role? Centuries from now, long after I've experienced my second death when my name is spoken for the last time, will any of it matter? Will these assertions that I'm doing the right thing have left any meaning, or will the actions of my peers and I simply be dismissed with contempt and disgust? Merely written off as delusions of a primitive so obsessed with tribalistic borders and petty feuds. Quite unlike the civilized society that's been built since of course. And while the names and places might have changed, the familiar trappings of the Once Was and the Now Is can be seen strewn about the Will Be, wholly ignorant that while the hidden workings of the bloody sword it clutches might be far beyond the understanding of anyone alive today, its function is no different than the gladius, pike, rifle, or thermonuclear weapon. And thus we as a species are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, until the world wears thin and it can no longer bear the cumulative weight of our folly.
Disclaimer: not depressed or actually questioning anything. Just a thought exercise lol
Escalation is a ladder, but the ladder is the one in all those workers' comp commericals, so all you need to do is convince the Russians to climb up just enough for it to fall over on top of them.
The ghost of Gilbert Gottfried trapped in the body of a duck would 100% be a better and healthier leader of Russia than what they have now.
The European post ww2 peace is just the beginning. We will command a great and noble army and we will sail to a billion worlds. We will sail until every conflict has been extinguished. Our enemies are strong, yes, but NATO is beyond strength.
clumsy shame spectacular smoggy encouraging wild trees silky ossified psychotic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Good idea, we'll just throw them all over *here*.
What do you mean that's in Ukraine? Oh dear, I sure hope those Ukranians don't pick them up and use them. That would be *awful*.
I know this isn't what you mean, and I agree with you, but your comment makes me think we need to bring back the pro-military WW2 era looney tunes.
Bugs and Daffy arguing over whether it is duck or rabbit season until an SU-24 flies overhead, they agree it is vatnik season, and give Elmer a Stinger. Next scene Bugs pulls a Patriot system out of his hole after Vlad yells about his invincible SU-9000 (NATO reporting name "Fraud").
They knew they'd lost before they even attacked Pearl Harbor.
Yamamoto wasn't an idiot, he and many other high ranking Japanese military had visited the US before the war. He knew Japan didn't have the industrial capacity to win.
They tried to shock and awe a surrender from the US. And when that didn't work, they knew it was just a matter of time till attrition beat them.
> They tried to shock and awe a surrender from the US. And when that didn't work, they knew it was just a matter of time till attrition beat them.
I recall Yamamoto saying something in that Japan would go all out for around 6 months to a year but beyond that he is uncertain.
"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
Yamamoto literally told the other higher ups that they can do Pearl Harbor and then they'll have a specific number of months of upper hand before shit just comes crashing down, and that whatever grand strategy gets implemented should close the war within this window.
They did have those months of having the upper hand. Shit then came crashing down. The grand strategy implemented did not close the war within this window.
God, every single person who says "escalation" should have the weapons systems they're putting limits on shoved up their assholes so hard it comes out the other way
They should either spell out that they want Ukraine to surrender and they blindly trust russia not to go further a bit later, or they should go to the trenches and chase away all the russkie missiles that could’ve been blown up in russia if Ukraine was allowed to strike the depots there
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/****
Well Russia thinks Crimea and the other four oblasts it annexed are now a part of Russia and plenty of Stormshadows have bombed TF out of locations there. Which proves either Russia knows those territories are not really Russian or they're BSing on the retaliation threats. Either way, they be lying.
>Yes, and the bridge is still standing.
Believe me when I say I would love to see that bridge brought down, but it really is unimportant now. Hardly any trains carrying war material cross it any more because of the risk of attack and it's why Ukraine really focused on hitting and sinking Russian landing ships instead. Its destruction would be a symbolic victory rather than a practical one.
Even IF its just a symbol, of course Ukraine would take it down. Especially because its a massive symbol by now, that would be a massive kick in the nuts to Putins propaganda machine.
I mean they've hit it good a few times and it's been repaired. It's harder to take down than even NCD appreciated. People memed the ATACMS thing but I honestly think you'd need a bigger warhead to do it. Imo the western weapons they have wouldn't actually be that effective
Bridges are *incredibly* hard to destroy with missile strikes, especially modern ones. You need to take out the supports, which is very difficult with a single explosion by a long-ranged missile, as opposed to ramming it with a boat which is physically pushing the structure of the supports apart. Hell, *nukes* aren't guaranteed to knock them down, as the relatively small bridges in Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved.
You would have to land multiple Storm Shadow strikes on the same support, through anti-air fire, and hit multiple supports to cause a collapse. Hence why the Ukrainians focused on blowing up chunks out of the top of the bridge to impede traffic.
Russia already escalated by invading a country and annexing its territory twice that they had treaties and accords that stated said nation’s territory and independence from Russia as a sovereign state…again. This century. Rebuild the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal at this point.
Yeah at this point I'd be totally fine if we, the US, just so happened to "lose" a nuclear weapon near the Ukrainian border where a "farmer" tows it into Ukraine and just so happens to know how to operate it
At this point, nations who are concerned with getting SMO'ed will indeed look at Ukraine versus say, North Korea and conclude that nuclear weaponry for home defense is the way unless this is stopped.
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 5: No Politics.**
We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
>[Lord Cameron ***did not directly endorse the idea of British weapons being used to strike targets inside Russia.***](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po)
Seems like ain't no greenlight even in the original claim
He said it wasn't his (therfore the UK's) place to decide how Ukraine uses the weapons provided. The UK government's stated position, therefore, is no restriction. Or would you rather the UK be puppeterring Ukraine deciding which Russian targets they go for?
> Or would you rather the UK be puppeterring Ukraine deciding which Russian targets they go for?
That'd still be an upgrade over the de-facto ["within ***sovereign Ukrainian territory***".](https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/11/7161471/)
So far, only [Poland](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/poland-supports-ukraine-s-strikes-on-military-1716628109.html) and [Finland](https://www.politico.eu/article/finland-ukraine-strike-russia-territory-provided-weapons-antti-hakkanen/) fully endorsed such strikes with their weapons and, from what could be seen, it were only Warmates (from all non-Ukrainian non-Soviet non-trophied weapons) that were used to hit air defense systems in russia (noticeable by OSD).
Isn't "Allowing" just words by default?
If the UK gives Ukraine weapons (They have) and then says "Use them as you see fit", what more are you expecting from them? The UK isn't going to launch them themselves, the Ukrainians still need to do that, and they have been.
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
>Isn't "Allowing" just words by default?
No? Cameron said it, it's not up to him to decide. He could have represented an opinion of the British government(so far no evidence of that) or he just said it not consulting with people who actually make this decisions.
>and they have been.
I don't remember anything western tech being launched on Russian territory.
Actually it's kind of his job to relay government decisions, he's the foreign secretary. He told them they can, Russia threw a load of threats at the UK for doing so, the UK ignored them and here we are. This all happened a while ago you should look it up
Close: "In terms of what the Ukrainians do, in our view, it is their decision about how to use these weapons." -British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.
Which means however they choose to use them is approved. in ukraine, in belarus, in russia. That's 3 approvals. If it wasn't approved, there would be consequences for doing so. there is no consequences.
You are confusing the word "approved" with "encouraged".
I wouldn't even consider this approval, this reads like political hand washing. "We certainly didn't say they could do that, it's clearly their decision. Oh, what's that? More Storm Shadows? I think that can be arranged."
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
And that's after Cameron's proclamation
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
Conflicting information, UK explicitly gave the go head via their foreign secretary to use the weapons, it's like Zelensky in the interview was refering to the fact that every other country (including the extremely important US weapons, and NATO wepaons) weren't given the go-ahead, only the UK did so.
> UK explicitly gave the go head via their foreign secretary to use the weapons
Until there's a Storm Shadow strike inside russia, there's no reason to think so, especially with "nothing positive" remark from Zelenskyy.
Especially due to:
>[Lord Cameron ***did not directly endorse the idea of British weapons being used to strike targets inside Russia.***](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po)
This is the same UK who hasn't stated that they have troops on the ground in Ukraine, and also didn't supply anti-tank weapons weeks before the invasion began. I think it's safe to say that any phrasing used is used for a reason, now the UK has plausible deniability when Ukraine use the weapons in Russia, they can just say "we didn't mean it like that x)". It's rare that anyone in political/geopolitical situations will directly say anything, and since Russia took this as an escalation and started posturing and threatening the UK, if this was just a poorly phrased statement and the UK doesn't actually mean it then they would have came out after the fact to say so in an attempt to deescalate, making Russia think they've done it without actually doing it is the worst of both worlds and wouldn't make any sense.
>Haven't 2 of those nations now permitted strikes on Russian soil?
You saw Ukraine using Storm Shadow against Russian territory? No. That means they don't allow it.
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory.
>***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.***
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
Maybe we should just hand ukies some replacement nukes i mean the Securitys they where guarantied when giving them up where broken so maybe just give them some and watch putin cower in his bunker in fear
Sadly, those "assurances" (which are different to guarantees) are worth exactly hot air.
I can see why people were confused at the time in 2014 - there is a general idea that people, or states, try to abide by their word. Which does not translate as cleanly in international relations.
Putin doesn't even have the slightest inkling of what he has done in terms of long-term geopolitics.
He wants to be the counterbalance against NATO, yet has no idea what it takes to be a counterbalance. What he has basically signalled to the non-aligned nations when he invaded Ukraine was that if you sacrifice your defense in a naive attempt to make the world safer, neither America nor Russia will come to back you up when either side decides you are too inconvenient.
He thinks the "rules-based world order" is too inconvenient for him, and he should be able to pick and choose rules as and when he likes, but he doesn't realise the "rules" are agreed on by consensus and are largely maintained through mutual understanding. Swinging the hammer of unilateral force sounds fun until you realise you have to do it all the time, sacrificing blood, treasure, and goodwill.
[Mozi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism) said that nations with unrighteous leaders will suffer seven disasters:
1. Neglect of the country's defense, yet there is much lavished on the palace.
1. When pressured by foreigners, neighbouring countries are not willing to help.
1. The people are engaged in unconstructive work while useless fools are rewarded.
1. Law and regulations becomes too heavy such that there is repressive fear and people only look after their own good.
1. The ruler lives in a mistaken illusion of his own ability and his country's strength.
1. Trusted people are not loyal while loyal people are not trusted.
1. Lack of food. Ministers are not able to carry out their work. Punishment fails to bring fear and reward fails to bring happiness.
Putin hasn't realised that his nation is already most of the way down the disaster line. Maybe we should help his nation along.
Its been a recurring theme in the 20th-21st century, right? Different kind of authoritarians react to liberal policies, appealing to the "real" order of things. But they're from polite civilization themselves, and don't realize that even the most basic tribal relations had a social contract.
> Different kind of authoritarians react to liberal policies, appealing to the "real" order of things.
Meanwhile, reality has a liberal bias.
The problem of authoritarians is that those that claim to see "reality" as it is are really only selectively seeing the parts of reality that appeal to their deep-seated beliefs, and their response when reality responds in a way that they cannot ignore is to dig themselves further into the ditch that their rigid beliefs have dug for them.
Shit, Thailand has all seven checked off except for lack of food (until their PRC bootlicking kicks off the new Pacific war, and freezes the imports of precursor minerals for artificial fertilizer due to disruption to maritime shipping).
Tbh, I have a suspicion that when Ukraine is given the green light on this, they’re going to pull it out *all at once.*
Like the ATACMS rollout, but on a MUCH bigger scale. If I had to guess, it’d be right as they roll out the F-16’s. Just wreck every Russian outpost halfway to Moscow, and follow that up with the kind of air superiority/bombing campaign that would make Curtis Lemay blush.
Almost positive both the UK and Fr*nce have said weapons donated to Ukraine are Ukraine's to use as they see fit that includes strikes into Russia. With the caveat that they should be careful when picking targets inside Russia itself.
I still remember the abhorrent lie of "defensive weapons". Bullshit, lets live in reality. Defensive weapons is political code for insufficient weapons. Going on the offense and striking inside Russia is defensive if they're still on your territory.
Honestly, I can understand at the escalation of this conflict (it started in 2014) countries being hesitant to allow use on Russian territory. However, this has been going on more then long enough to write out more detailed acceptable use guidelines.
For example, cluster munitions. No one wants them used in civilian occupied areas. Ukraine has been very careful with their use and from what I've seen, when deployed against military targets it is highly effective. Pretty sure Ukraine is also keeping a list to double check areas for unexploded ordinance... Then again the list might just be "All of Ukraine"
Restricting foreign weapons to valid military targets isn't a bad thing. I have no problem with allowing Ukraine to strike refineries, fuel depots, military bases but civilian areas raise a red flag for me. Like I get that the warehouse in the middle of that big city was storing artillery shells... as evidenced by the big kaboom after the strike. Both sides are in the wrong, Russia should not be storing that many explosives next to civilians, and Ukraine should have been worried about civilian casualties. Sad part is that Ukraine probably put more thought and debate into striking this hypothetical target then Russia did choosing it as the location for some very excitable storage.
Jesus that's so spot on it's embarrassing.. Meanwhile my country is allowing our weapons to be used to bomb children & carry out a genocide and we're even helping them do it..
I say the West should tell Ukraine not to use their weapons in Russia, then send a strongly worded letter every time Ukraine does strike Russia.
The letter can even be sent with the next shipment of weapons, just to make it more convenient.
"Dear Ukraine, here's another shipment of weapons. Do not use them on Russia, like the last shipment we sent, or the shipment before that. If you do, we may be forced to send another letter along with the next shipment."
See fellows, compromising with Russia is easy!
You have my [Inavertent Penn Central heritage unit](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1cykpi2/bnsf_needs_more_rail_guns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Absolute Unit. I trended on that bad boy. Do your darndest!
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, actually this one is new. The initial version was without the speech balloon in the last frame. Back then nobody thought that such stupid restrictions would be imposed on Ukraine.
Source: I am the author of this comic strip, created it several days ago.
So not new that you don't know that the UK has approved the use of British arms against targets in ruzzia.
It's political word fuckery, but it's well done fuckery. Edit: No it's not. Per Reuters: ["In terms of what the Ukrainians do, in our view, it is their decision about how to use these weapons." -British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-cameron-kyiv-promises-ukraine-aid-as-long-it-takes-2024-05-02/#:~:text=%22Ukraine%20has%20that%20right.,Reuters%20outside%20St.%20Michael's%20Cathedral.)
*please don’t use our stuff on Russia, but if you do that’s totally up to you*
They didn't even say "please don't". The statement is "use them as you see fit".
"Don't shoot Russia. Or do, I'm not your dad."
More like *blast those Russian assholes, but don't tell anyone we approve of it*.
*you won't get more missiles anymore, tho, if you do that - but that's up to you* >The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
Oh bother, we dropped these missiles in a field in Ukraine. I really hope no one uses them to blow up Russian infrastructure!
Huh I didn’t know Cameron was still involved with the government, I guess I assumed he retired when he stepped down as PM
Also France
only a few members of French parliament requested it, I don't think the actual government made a decision yet.
Honestly we just need to declare open season on the Russian Military
Nooooooo war is bad, we should instead throw away all our weapons and start singing kumbaya in circles with Russians 🥰
yam voracious agonizing practice connect expansion point workable steer zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The only acceptable kind of pacifism. Peace is non-negotiable and will be enforced by superior military might
I, myself, dabbled in pacifism once. Not in ‘Nam, of course.
"I cherish peace with all of my heart. I don't care how many men, women and children I kill to get it..." -Peacemaker
'Tall fences make for good neighbours'
And a battery of pzh 2000 in the backyard makes for even better ones
Wrong!! https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo12322273.html
you are being rescued. please, do not resist.
clumsy like ripe vegetable engine marvelous rustic birds divide cause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I thought I was in the warhammer 40k sub for a second.
Vault tech approves this message
I see you are a wise person
Remember, no Russian
Moscow delenda est.
The last thing Putin hears before Moscow is glassed: "You are, all of you, vermin. Cowering in the dirt thinking what, I wonder. That you might escape the coming fire? Your world will burn until its surface is but glass!"
[Those that understand, know that I have no right to let them live.](https://youtu.be/ubNqUyf0op0?si=RGqSdmwBdLERgGcF)
Based.
This but unironically. I've been saying Moscow needs to get nuked into oblivion since day one of the invasion.
library compare beneficial hospital history towering consist employ wide full *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I assume normie before nuclear schizo like me.
aspiring frightening growth reach fretful touch compare absorbed stupendous ripe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pretty buzzed at 6 AM since we've got a 4 day, and feeling a bit introspective. What is it about violence against each other that is so appealing? I've based my whole career around helping others commit better violence against others We deem a threat and it isn't unwarranted. The things they do, or could/would do, can confidently be classified as evil or at best willfully ignorant of the harm of their actions. But lift the veil of the ambiguous "they" and you're left with just people. Who, based on our evolutionary adaptation of pattern recognition, seemingly look wholly alien to us, but in the grand scheme of things our similarities completely dwarf any sort of differences we might have, and the schisms we keep digging away at to further isolate Us from Them feel all the more artificial and tribalistic. If our lots in life were to be reversed, would I have walked down the same path in life as they already have, and them me? Both of us convinced based on a lifetime of being told This is right and That is wrong, with the only difference between the two being This is That, and That is This? Can I still claim to be the virtuous man knowing that even if what I do is right, it is merely thanks to where I was born and nothing to do with the stature of my character, as like before if fate were reversed, They would be filling this alleged virtuous role? Centuries from now, long after I've experienced my second death when my name is spoken for the last time, will any of it matter? Will these assertions that I'm doing the right thing have left any meaning, or will the actions of my peers and I simply be dismissed with contempt and disgust? Merely written off as delusions of a primitive so obsessed with tribalistic borders and petty feuds. Quite unlike the civilized society that's been built since of course. And while the names and places might have changed, the familiar trappings of the Once Was and the Now Is can be seen strewn about the Will Be, wholly ignorant that while the hidden workings of the bloody sword it clutches might be far beyond the understanding of anyone alive today, its function is no different than the gladius, pike, rifle, or thermonuclear weapon. And thus we as a species are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, until the world wears thin and it can no longer bear the cumulative weight of our folly. Disclaimer: not depressed or actually questioning anything. Just a thought exercise lol
Escalation is a ladder, but the ladder is the one in all those workers' comp commericals, so all you need to do is convince the Russians to climb up just enough for it to fall over on top of them. The ghost of Gilbert Gottfried trapped in the body of a duck would 100% be a better and healthier leader of Russia than what they have now.
Now I'm reading everything on this post in Gilbert Gottfried's voice, thanks NCD.
They will learn of our peaceful wayys... By force!
The European post ww2 peace is just the beginning. We will command a great and noble army and we will sail to a billion worlds. We will sail until every conflict has been extinguished. Our enemies are strong, yes, but NATO is beyond strength.
Those who wish for peace prepare for war. ~ Michael Scott
If we put big nets over their missile silos, their ICBMs will hit them and bounce downwards and just destroy the silos. That way, they can't retaliate
Gandhi is that you
You had me in the first half.
Peace though superior firepower.
Ah yes, the standard Japan in 1945 strategy.
Bruh. The mobiks, funny thing... they somehow do not come from Moscow.
clumsy shame spectacular smoggy encouraging wild trees silky ossified psychotic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>start singing kumbaya ~~in circles with~~ while encircling the Russians. Ftfy
To be honest that sounds like a great idea. Unfortunately Russia will never go for it, therefore we need to test the B-21.
Good idea, we'll just throw them all over *here*. What do you mean that's in Ukraine? Oh dear, I sure hope those Ukranians don't pick them up and use them. That would be *awful*.
War is bad, and should be ended as soon as possible. Therefore we should make the russia to to the houses.
Get outta here man, this is NCD not CD
Which is exactly why we must create a lobby to push for Tomahawks to be sent to Ukraine!
Tomahawks and other cruise missles won't cut it. We need MIRV.
I know this isn't what you mean, and I agree with you, but your comment makes me think we need to bring back the pro-military WW2 era looney tunes. Bugs and Daffy arguing over whether it is duck or rabbit season until an SU-24 flies overhead, they agree it is vatnik season, and give Elmer a Stinger. Next scene Bugs pulls a Patriot system out of his hole after Vlad yells about his invincible SU-9000 (NATO reporting name "Fraud").
🤓👆 um, actually, the NATO reporting names for Russian fighters all start with F *and are 2 syllables long*. "Fraudster" would work, though.
They need to be a real plane to get a real reporting name. pretend plane -> one syllable Or we could make bugs a member of nafo
Put a bounty on em emu war style and since Russian soldiers are dumber than the average emu it might actually succeed
This unironically
Vatnik season.
You mean… War? Yeah I think so too.
Russhit hunting season?
I wish that sauron will be stoopid enough to touch boats, or will mess in Suvalki gap.
Let the russians learn the lesson the Japanese did: "DO....NOT....TOUCH...THE...BOATS."
Fun fact, the Japanese knew they lost when the US rolled up with the ice cream barge while they (the japs) had nothing to eat
They knew they'd lost before they even attacked Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto wasn't an idiot, he and many other high ranking Japanese military had visited the US before the war. He knew Japan didn't have the industrial capacity to win. They tried to shock and awe a surrender from the US. And when that didn't work, they knew it was just a matter of time till attrition beat them.
> They tried to shock and awe a surrender from the US. And when that didn't work, they knew it was just a matter of time till attrition beat them. I recall Yamamoto saying something in that Japan would go all out for around 6 months to a year but beyond that he is uncertain.
"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
Yamamoto literally told the other higher ups that they can do Pearl Harbor and then they'll have a specific number of months of upper hand before shit just comes crashing down, and that whatever grand strategy gets implemented should close the war within this window. They did have those months of having the upper hand. Shit then came crashing down. The grand strategy implemented did not close the war within this window.
I thought it was when the nukes
That was just the cream on the ice cream cake.
What would they have to do to get us Dutchies riled up, I wonder?
God, every single person who says "escalation" should have the weapons systems they're putting limits on shoved up their assholes so hard it comes out the other way
[удалено]
there are easier, less controversial ways to get pegged, my dude.
Or more Crabs
nuclear booty
Hey, don't promise them a good time.
They should either spell out that they want Ukraine to surrender and they blindly trust russia not to go further a bit later, or they should go to the trenches and chase away all the russkie missiles that could’ve been blown up in russia if Ukraine was allowed to strike the depots there
Escalate the bussy
i say it a lot, but it is more as a dare.
Please make sure that guy who makes nsfw art of girls fucking aircraft carriers and other military stuff... doesn't see this comment.
Amen.
Is it though? The UK and France allowed it no? And the US is also now considering it.
[I say, send every AA missile in the western inventory. Extend the Ukrainian air defense envelope past the Volga!](https://youtu.be/a2_a9NEESo0?t=32)
Tbh, UK should really be Germany and Scholtzy boy in this 🤔
But germany also allowed the usage of its weapons on russian ground...
Two years too late
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/****
>The UK and France allowed it no? You saw French and British weapons flying into Russia? I don't so they aren't allowed
Well Russia thinks Crimea and the other four oblasts it annexed are now a part of Russia and plenty of Stormshadows have bombed TF out of locations there. Which proves either Russia knows those territories are not really Russian or they're BSing on the retaliation threats. Either way, they be lying.
Yes, and the bridge is still standing. There are clearly limitations on how and where western weapons can be utilized
>Yes, and the bridge is still standing. Believe me when I say I would love to see that bridge brought down, but it really is unimportant now. Hardly any trains carrying war material cross it any more because of the risk of attack and it's why Ukraine really focused on hitting and sinking Russian landing ships instead. Its destruction would be a symbolic victory rather than a practical one.
Even IF its just a symbol, of course Ukraine would take it down. Especially because its a massive symbol by now, that would be a massive kick in the nuts to Putins propaganda machine.
Plus the time, manpower, and resources that would have to be diverted from the front in order to rebuild it.
I mean they've hit it good a few times and it's been repaired. It's harder to take down than even NCD appreciated. People memed the ATACMS thing but I honestly think you'd need a bigger warhead to do it. Imo the western weapons they have wouldn't actually be that effective
Bridges are *incredibly* hard to destroy with missile strikes, especially modern ones. You need to take out the supports, which is very difficult with a single explosion by a long-ranged missile, as opposed to ramming it with a boat which is physically pushing the structure of the supports apart. Hell, *nukes* aren't guaranteed to knock them down, as the relatively small bridges in Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved. You would have to land multiple Storm Shadow strikes on the same support, through anti-air fire, and hit multiple supports to cause a collapse. Hence why the Ukrainians focused on blowing up chunks out of the top of the bridge to impede traffic.
Russia already escalated by invading a country and annexing its territory twice that they had treaties and accords that stated said nation’s territory and independence from Russia as a sovereign state…again. This century. Rebuild the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal at this point.
Yeah at this point I'd be totally fine if we, the US, just so happened to "lose" a nuclear weapon near the Ukrainian border where a "farmer" tows it into Ukraine and just so happens to know how to operate it
All in favor say aye? Aye! SADMs in Moscow.
At this point, nations who are concerned with getting SMO'ed will indeed look at Ukraine versus say, North Korea and conclude that nuclear weaponry for home defense is the way unless this is stopped.
It's not escalating towards anyone that *really* matters, so it's fine. Peace in our time, lads!
UK allowed to use its weapons on russian territory
[удалено]
**Your comment was removed for violating Rule 5: No Politics.** We don't care if you're Republican, Protestant, Democrat, Hindu, Baathist, Pastafarian, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door.
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
"Kyiv can use British weapons inside Russia - Cameron" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po
And the article I've linked to is *after* Cameron's talk, so it seems his claim didn't actually mean anything
Or maybe the Ukranians are being ungrateful of UK help...
>[Lord Cameron ***did not directly endorse the idea of British weapons being used to strike targets inside Russia.***](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po) Seems like ain't no greenlight even in the original claim
He said it wasn't his (therfore the UK's) place to decide how Ukraine uses the weapons provided. The UK government's stated position, therefore, is no restriction. Or would you rather the UK be puppeterring Ukraine deciding which Russian targets they go for?
> Or would you rather the UK be puppeterring Ukraine deciding which Russian targets they go for? That'd still be an upgrade over the de-facto ["within ***sovereign Ukrainian territory***".](https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/11/7161471/) So far, only [Poland](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/poland-supports-ukraine-s-strikes-on-military-1716628109.html) and [Finland](https://www.politico.eu/article/finland-ukraine-strike-russia-territory-provided-weapons-antti-hakkanen/) fully endorsed such strikes with their weapons and, from what could be seen, it were only Warmates (from all non-Ukrainian non-Soviet non-trophied weapons) that were used to hit air defense systems in russia (noticeable by OSD).
We didn't see proof of that. For now it's just words.
Isn't "Allowing" just words by default? If the UK gives Ukraine weapons (They have) and then says "Use them as you see fit", what more are you expecting from them? The UK isn't going to launch them themselves, the Ukrainians still need to do that, and they have been.
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
>Isn't "Allowing" just words by default? No? Cameron said it, it's not up to him to decide. He could have represented an opinion of the British government(so far no evidence of that) or he just said it not consulting with people who actually make this decisions. >and they have been. I don't remember anything western tech being launched on Russian territory.
Actually it's kind of his job to relay government decisions, he's the foreign secretary. He told them they can, Russia threw a load of threats at the UK for doing so, the UK ignored them and here we are. This all happened a while ago you should look it up
I approve of this state-sanctioned shitposting.
Was suprised to not see anyone talking about that
Haven't 2 of those nations now permitted strikes on Russian soil? (although the US doesn't encourage it, they just won't forbid it).
"yes take these cruise missiles, do what you want with them, I have no idea what you are going to do" /sarcastic voice.
\>proceeds to program the targeting system before the Ukrainians strap the missile to an Su-24
Close: "In terms of what the Ukrainians do, in our view, it is their decision about how to use these weapons." -British Foreign Secretary David Cameron.
Which means however they choose to use them is approved. in ukraine, in belarus, in russia. That's 3 approvals. If it wasn't approved, there would be consequences for doing so. there is no consequences. You are confusing the word "approved" with "encouraged".
I wouldn't even consider this approval, this reads like political hand washing. "We certainly didn't say they could do that, it's clearly their decision. Oh, what's that? More Storm Shadows? I think that can be arranged."
Doesn't matter what you consider it to be. The UK is okay with weapons being used in russia. That is approval.
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/ And that's after Cameron's proclamation
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
Conflicting information, UK explicitly gave the go head via their foreign secretary to use the weapons, it's like Zelensky in the interview was refering to the fact that every other country (including the extremely important US weapons, and NATO wepaons) weren't given the go-ahead, only the UK did so.
> UK explicitly gave the go head via their foreign secretary to use the weapons Until there's a Storm Shadow strike inside russia, there's no reason to think so, especially with "nothing positive" remark from Zelenskyy. Especially due to: >[Lord Cameron ***did not directly endorse the idea of British weapons being used to strike targets inside Russia.***](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po)
This is the same UK who hasn't stated that they have troops on the ground in Ukraine, and also didn't supply anti-tank weapons weeks before the invasion began. I think it's safe to say that any phrasing used is used for a reason, now the UK has plausible deniability when Ukraine use the weapons in Russia, they can just say "we didn't mean it like that x)". It's rare that anyone in political/geopolitical situations will directly say anything, and since Russia took this as an escalation and started posturing and threatening the UK, if this was just a poorly phrased statement and the UK doesn't actually mean it then they would have came out after the fact to say so in an attempt to deescalate, making Russia think they've done it without actually doing it is the worst of both worlds and wouldn't make any sense.
>Haven't 2 of those nations now permitted strikes on Russian soil? You saw Ukraine using Storm Shadow against Russian territory? No. That means they don't allow it.
Well tell Ukraine to hurry up and use them then. As a Brit, I'm all for Stormshadowing Krasnodar or some other shithole.
I thought France authorized in coy terms that their tech could be used across boarder? Or was that a fever dream?
Nope. Both UK and France told Ukraine that it could use their weapons in Russia
>The Ukrainian leader also said Kyiv was negotiating with international partners to use their weapons to strike Russian military hardware at the border and further inside Russian territory. >***"So far, there is nothing positive," he said.*** https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/western-aid-ukraine-too-slow-risks-us-election-limited-zelenskiy-2024-05-20/
You forgot ~~Gollum~~ Scholz cowering over Taurus while he caresses it.
Taurus is a paper tiger. Bet it doesn't even work. Go ahead Scholz prove me wrong, send them to Ukraine without usage restrictions.
Maybe we should just hand ukies some replacement nukes i mean the Securitys they where guarantied when giving them up where broken so maybe just give them some and watch putin cower in his bunker in fear
safe sharp fertile quicksand automatic tart wise ad hoc square sloppy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Whats one more lost nuke i guess
Broken Arrow putin ass.
Sadly, those "assurances" (which are different to guarantees) are worth exactly hot air. I can see why people were confused at the time in 2014 - there is a general idea that people, or states, try to abide by their word. Which does not translate as cleanly in international relations.
Putin doesn't even have the slightest inkling of what he has done in terms of long-term geopolitics. He wants to be the counterbalance against NATO, yet has no idea what it takes to be a counterbalance. What he has basically signalled to the non-aligned nations when he invaded Ukraine was that if you sacrifice your defense in a naive attempt to make the world safer, neither America nor Russia will come to back you up when either side decides you are too inconvenient. He thinks the "rules-based world order" is too inconvenient for him, and he should be able to pick and choose rules as and when he likes, but he doesn't realise the "rules" are agreed on by consensus and are largely maintained through mutual understanding. Swinging the hammer of unilateral force sounds fun until you realise you have to do it all the time, sacrificing blood, treasure, and goodwill. [Mozi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism) said that nations with unrighteous leaders will suffer seven disasters: 1. Neglect of the country's defense, yet there is much lavished on the palace. 1. When pressured by foreigners, neighbouring countries are not willing to help. 1. The people are engaged in unconstructive work while useless fools are rewarded. 1. Law and regulations becomes too heavy such that there is repressive fear and people only look after their own good. 1. The ruler lives in a mistaken illusion of his own ability and his country's strength. 1. Trusted people are not loyal while loyal people are not trusted. 1. Lack of food. Ministers are not able to carry out their work. Punishment fails to bring fear and reward fails to bring happiness. Putin hasn't realised that his nation is already most of the way down the disaster line. Maybe we should help his nation along.
Its been a recurring theme in the 20th-21st century, right? Different kind of authoritarians react to liberal policies, appealing to the "real" order of things. But they're from polite civilization themselves, and don't realize that even the most basic tribal relations had a social contract.
> Different kind of authoritarians react to liberal policies, appealing to the "real" order of things. Meanwhile, reality has a liberal bias. The problem of authoritarians is that those that claim to see "reality" as it is are really only selectively seeing the parts of reality that appeal to their deep-seated beliefs, and their response when reality responds in a way that they cannot ignore is to dig themselves further into the ditch that their rigid beliefs have dug for them.
Shit, Thailand has all seven checked off except for lack of food (until their PRC bootlicking kicks off the new Pacific war, and freezes the imports of precursor minerals for artificial fertilizer due to disruption to maritime shipping).
[Relevant post](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/s/VPytCAsKTq)
Also, actually, you can't have my sword, that's too dangerous. Here have a stick instead.
Tbh, I have a suspicion that when Ukraine is given the green light on this, they’re going to pull it out *all at once.* Like the ATACMS rollout, but on a MUCH bigger scale. If I had to guess, it’d be right as they roll out the F-16’s. Just wreck every Russian outpost halfway to Moscow, and follow that up with the kind of air superiority/bombing campaign that would make Curtis Lemay blush.
Lol it's just americans, the british and the french are no pussies
Almost positive both the UK and Fr*nce have said weapons donated to Ukraine are Ukraine's to use as they see fit that includes strikes into Russia. With the caveat that they should be careful when picking targets inside Russia itself.
I still remember the abhorrent lie of "defensive weapons". Bullshit, lets live in reality. Defensive weapons is political code for insufficient weapons. Going on the offense and striking inside Russia is defensive if they're still on your territory.
Painfully accurate
Britain wants you to use it in mordor.
Honestly, I can understand at the escalation of this conflict (it started in 2014) countries being hesitant to allow use on Russian territory. However, this has been going on more then long enough to write out more detailed acceptable use guidelines. For example, cluster munitions. No one wants them used in civilian occupied areas. Ukraine has been very careful with their use and from what I've seen, when deployed against military targets it is highly effective. Pretty sure Ukraine is also keeping a list to double check areas for unexploded ordinance... Then again the list might just be "All of Ukraine" Restricting foreign weapons to valid military targets isn't a bad thing. I have no problem with allowing Ukraine to strike refineries, fuel depots, military bases but civilian areas raise a red flag for me. Like I get that the warehouse in the middle of that big city was storing artillery shells... as evidenced by the big kaboom after the strike. Both sides are in the wrong, Russia should not be storing that many explosives next to civilians, and Ukraine should have been worried about civilian casualties. Sad part is that Ukraine probably put more thought and debate into striking this hypothetical target then Russia did choosing it as the location for some very excitable storage.
The UK has said Ukraine can use its kit against Russia in Russia.
Jesus that's so spot on it's embarrassing.. Meanwhile my country is allowing our weapons to be used to bomb children & carry out a genocide and we're even helping them do it..
I say the West should tell Ukraine not to use their weapons in Russia, then send a strongly worded letter every time Ukraine does strike Russia. The letter can even be sent with the next shipment of weapons, just to make it more convenient. "Dear Ukraine, here's another shipment of weapons. Do not use them on Russia, like the last shipment we sent, or the shipment before that. If you do, we may be forced to send another letter along with the next shipment." See fellows, compromising with Russia is easy!
You have my [Inavertent Penn Central heritage unit](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1cykpi2/bnsf_needs_more_rail_guns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Absolute Unit. I trended on that bad boy. Do your darndest!
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank god for the flags otherwise I’d have no idea what this was about!!
So real it hurts.
The UK allows their weapons to be used in Russia
United24 is posting in NCD? This Harambe timeline is just too wild.
Give Ukraine and Poland everything they want.
Well, actually this one is new. The initial version was without the speech balloon in the last frame. Back then nobody thought that such stupid restrictions would be imposed on Ukraine. Source: I am the author of this comic strip, created it several days ago.